Anyone else interested only in gameplay?

People who think gameplay is more important than graphics ought to imagine their favorite game with a much less consistent, lower budget, amateur art design, and ask themselves if the game would still be as enjoyable. It's difficult to think of games in which art direction isn't just as important as sound design and gameplay.

Obviously, a map that both looks cool and is fun to play is the ideal, but I don't mind if a map is butt-ugly if it's, to quote what was once said about Petersen's designs, "fun and fiendish". A lot of stuff from the '94-'95 era is, IMO, badly underrated when it comes to providing fun, interesting and even challenging scenarios. Maybe I just don't consider Doom serious business enough.

Would Last of Us have been just as good if it looked like this?



Would Bioshock have had the same feeling if it looked like this?




Obviously, gameplay is a priority but visuals aren't to be neglected either. Immersion is a good thing and not just on the hardware end, I don't think Metroid Prime would have had the same feeling if it didn't have those weather effects on the visor.

There is no reason one cannot build plain structured maps to perfect game play and then pretty it up. There is simply no excuse for maps to be ugly (unless you lack the drive... but I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder). That being said there is a difference between ugly and plain. Ugly maps can be actually detrimental to game play because you don't know if you've already been to the same place (everything looks the same), it could be distractingly ugly (random textures all over the place), or plain/lack of architecture/structures actually take away from the feel of game play. On the other hand, there is no need to be super anal about micro structures and have 30 wall layers. Like anything, it's a tired argument that is really summed up in "be balanced".

MetroidJunkie said:

stuff

Obviously they'd be *different*, but both of those look fine to me in their own right. Low-spec does not mean ugly.

Can you honestly say you wouldn't rather have them looking great, though? If they played exactly the same, are you seriously telling me you wouldn't favor the one that has identical gameplay but superior visuals?

I feel like the question is wrong, since it implies that not caring about graphics isn't the same thing as caring about gameplay.

Imagine a wad that takes every in-world graphic and makes every non-transparent color the same color. The same color across all graphics, so every wall texture is red, every flat is red, every sprite is the sprite's silhouette carved out of red. Everything's red. Everything's the same exact red. So now the only way to distinguish between actors and walls is through subtle differences in redness due to how Doom "fades out" light over distance.

Would it be playable? Yes. Would it be ugly? Yes. Would you want to play it? If you do, you probably don't value your vision at all, and you'll likely stop wanting to play it pretty quickly. That's before factoring facets like atmosphere and player feel and how that changes how the gameplay affects you, mind, because Doom's atmosphere would go straight down the toilet when you're trying to discern red blobs from a red background.

That's certainly a very extreme example, and there's a difference between bad graphic design and unappealing but unintrusive graphic design, but the point still stands. Haven't you ever been unable to discern a door from the surrounding wall, despite in hindsight the door having a distinctive texture? That's graphics directly impacting gameplay, through inhibiting conveyance and clarity. A door locked by one key yet marked as if it's locked by another? Same deal. Two entirely different monsters, one extremely weak and the other extremely deadly, barely discernible or even using the same exact graphics? Well, have fun.

MetroidJunkie said:

Can you honestly say you wouldn't rather have them looking great, though? If they played exactly the same, are you seriously telling me you wouldn't favor the one that has identical gameplay but superior visuals?

Is it really so fascinating that some people actually don't care? Or that people enjoy WADs like DtwID 1/2? Yeah, I like details and all, but sometimes it just isn't everything to me. I don't play favorites...there's plenty of levels that look good or bad and play good or bad. And yeah, I would prefer that levels look real pretty, but ultimately my concern is whether it's something I can enjoy playing in the first place or not.

I think AV/PL2 are some of my favorite WADs that I consider well-detailed, but once in a while I feel like playing something more classic in appearance - like HR/HR2 or Icarus. I just have different moods at different times...I don't see what's wrong with that.

My point is that visuals shouldn't be completely neglected. Focusing on Doom here, let's say there's a WAD with very good gameplay but it has all kinds of visual garbage. It has hallway of mirror glitches, misaligned textures, textures that completely go against the theme of the actual map, no actual lighting detail to speak of, no discernible landmarks to help make your way around the level or any indication of how far in the map you are, would that not bog down your experience? Those maps you stated may not be as expansively detailed as others but there's still clear thought put into their designs, at least to the level that id put into their own Vanilla maps.

valkiriforce said:

I think AV/PL2 are some of my favorite WADs that I consider well-detailed, but once in a while I feel like playing something more classic in appearance - like HR/HR2 or Icarus.

I just couldn't get into Icarus after 3 maps because the visuals were so bad. It made HR levels look like fine art.

I would say that gameplay is very important, but I think visual design is equally important. From my perspective, I want to be immersed in the world and have some sense of where I am. It doesn't have to be overly complex architecture, as nice as that is, but I think it adds to the overall experience.

MetroidJunkie said:

Would Last of Us have been just as good if it looked like this?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jebvWalQ1Q/hqdefault.jpg

Would Bioshock have had the same feeling if it looked like this?

http://im.ziffdavisinternational.com/t/ign_de/screenshot/default/bioshock_jw4s.1920.jpg


Obviously, gameplay is a priority but visuals aren't to be neglected either. Immersion is a good thing and not just on the hardware end, I don't think Metroid Prime would have had the same feeling if it didn't have those weather effects on the visor.

Those look aesthetically fine to me. so yeah, it's not a problem.

So you'd say you'd enjoy it 100% as much if it had Ps1 graphics and everything else was completely identical. You wouldn't appreciate the environmental or graphical detail, not even slightly.

One does not work without the other.

I have played my share of maps that had decent gameplay but were clearly showing the lack of aesthetics by their creator. I very rarely play such things more than once, if even that. Most of the time such a lack goes hand in hand with other questionable decisions (like not marking locked doors, hiding important stuff in unmarked secrets etc.)

Of course the nicest looking map won't get far if the gameplay sucks.

Gameplay > Aesthetics, but a level with good gameplay is expected to have some consistency on aesthetics, even if is very simple and basic detailing. You'll be expecing at least some sense of location, spacing and logic on texturing.

In my levels, I build decoration around gameplay, which includes columns, Windows, stuff on wall and doors.

MetroidJunkie said:

So you'd say you'd enjoy it 100% as much if it had Ps1 graphics and everything else was completely identical. You wouldn't appreciate the environmental or graphical detail, not even slightly.

Thats pretty much it, yeah.
I know what I can and cannot appreciate, why would I play Doom if graphics meant so much to me?

If we are gonna talk graphics

Aesthetics and consistency in art design is way more important than the amount of polygons you can render.

But wouldn't you rather have better visuals if you can help it? There's this misconception that wanting better visuals means at the expense of everything else. Visuals aren't as important but ALL aspects are still important.

Some of you are taking this to a whole new level. I'm not saying the aesthetic aspect of the maps should be completely neglected, I just said I'm not too concerned with small visual details in a map. The layout and detailing are two separate things in my eyes, and detail has nothing to do with the way a map plays. The layout is and always will be the most important thing to me in a map, but if it is visually stimulating, that's a bonus, and I do enjoy a perfect mixture of the two. Layout is what the gameplay is based on, and visual ugliness doesn't affect my opinion concerning a map too much (there are some exceptions). The sprites themselves should definitely not be neglected, but I never said anything about sprites, so I don't know where some of you are coming up with that idea. But everyone has his/her own opinion and I respect that. As long as there are Hell Revealed inspired WADs being pumped out, I'm content :D

jazzmaster9 said:

Aesthetics and consistency in art design is way more important than the amount of polygons you can render.

I enjoy levels that, visually, have some kind of organizing idea and go for it. I want to feel like I'm inside someone else's world. This can range from zone300 to Sunder. Either way, I look back on those levels like I've been some place.

To echo what others have said, there's an especially close union in Doom between the player and the surrounding geometry because this is so much a game of running and maneuvering to survive.

Aquanet said:

I want to feel like I'm inside someone else's world. This can range from zone300 to Sunder. Either way, I look back on those levels like I've been some place.

Well said. I usually only feel completely engrossed when I'm playing large levels with open layouts, but you hit the nail on the head with Sunder!

MetroidJunkie said:

But wouldn't you rather have better visuals if you can help it? There's this misconception that wanting better visuals means at the expense of everything else. Visuals aren't as important but ALL aspects are still important.

Im not saying visuals ruin the experience. My point is gameplay should gameplay should be the main priority in design.

4k resolutions and 8 billion polys wont mean a damn if the art style is all over the place and gameplay is broken.

If literally everything else was the same, would you rather have 320x200 and 1,000 polygons or 4k and 8 billion polygons? You seem to be arguing against the wrong thing, listen to me carefully. Graphics aren't as important but they still make a difference.

In the case of Doom itself, I think its simple aesthetic works in its favor and allows its locales to be more abstract and interesting.

Gameplay is secondary to visuals

No way, I love the horror theme, it's what made it so great (and controversial at the time). If it was just the math you could tone it down completely. You could turn it into a game about arranging flowers or petting dogs. Without the landscapes and environment, it would be much less exciting to play.

MetroidJunkie said:

If literally everything else was the same, would you rather have 320x200 and 1,000 polygons or 4k and 8 billion polygons? You seem to be arguing against the wrong thing, listen to me carefully. Graphics aren't as important but they still make a difference.

Ill play the game the way the creator intended it to be.
If the designer did it in low res then ill play and judge according to his intention.

Last of Us and Bioshock has very good gameplay that regardless if its 320x200 or 4K if the aesthetics are consitent and fitting for the game.

I need a decently detailed map with a fair challenge level.

That's it.


No lazy mapping & no slaughter maps.

splatterhouse said:

Is there anyone else on here that isn't concerned too much with quality map detailing and is mainly concerned with gameplay? ... I don't care if a map is ugly, as long as a wad is fun to play and challenging, it's solid in my book.

I'm with you. Visuals can make games appealing, but it's gameplay that makes them exciting, and that's what I play games for. Any visuals that don't hurt my eyes or otherwise notably distract me from gameplay are OK with me as long as I'm enjoying the gameplay.

Nah, Bioshock gameplay is not that good. I love the game, though.